U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Trump's immunity claim, lets prosecutor get financial records

[webfact]

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Trump's immunity claim, lets prosecutor get financial records

By Lawrence Hurley and Jan Wolfe

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about today's Supreme Court rulings, calling them "part of a political witch hunt and a hoax,” during a roundtable discussion with members of the Hispanic community in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., July 9, 2020. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday firmly rejected President Donald Trump's argument for sweeping presidential immunity and ruled that a New York prosecutor can obtain his financial records but prevented - at least for now - Democratic-led House of Representatives committees from getting similar documents.

 

The twin 7-2 rulings authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts mark another milestone in Trump's tumultuous presidency and in the short-term prevent details of his finances from becoming public because lower courts will be called upon to resolve lingering issues.

 

The businessman-turned politician, seeking re-election on Nov. 3, has fought tenaciously to keep his tax returns and other elements of his finances secret - and the rulings spare him of any major revelation at a sensitive time. But looking further ahead, Trump faces possible future criminal prosecution in his native New York, perhaps after he leaves office.

 

Trump's two Supreme Court appointees, conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, joined Roberts and the four liberal justices in both rulings, spurning Trump's arguments that the Constitution gave him absolute immunity from any criminal proceedings as a sitting president.

 

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat, and the House committees all issued subpoenas to third parties for the records, not to the Republican president himself. Trump sued to block enforcement of the subpoenas.

 

The court in the New York case ruled that the subpoena to Trump's long-term accounting firm, Mazars LLP, for various tax returns and other financial records to be turned over to a grand jury as part of Vance's criminal investigation can be enforced.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a New York prosecutor can obtain President Donald Trump's financial records but prevented - at least for now - Democratic-led House of Representatives committees from getting similar documents. This report produced by Zachary Goelman.

 

The justices rebuffed Trump's broad arguments on expansive presidential powers in a showdown with Congress as he tried to block subpoenas by three House committees to Mazars and two banks for his financial records.

 

But in doing so, the court also faulted the broad arguments made by the House and sent the litigation back to lower courts for further review, delaying the final outcome.

 

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court stoutly reaffirmed the principle that not even the president is above the law - a message delivered 3-1/2 years into a presidency in which Trump has repeatedly skirted the norms of American political conduct.

 

Trump turned to Twitter to complain about the rulings, writing: "Courts in the past have given 'broad deference'. BUT NOT ME!" He added, "This is all a political prosecution ... and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!"

 

"We will now proceed to raise additional constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts," added Jay Sekulow, Trump's personal lawyer.

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats will continue investigating Trump, pressing forward in seeking to enforce the subpoenas.

 

"Congress's constitutional responsibility to uncover the truth continues, specifically related to the President's Russia connection that he is hiding," Pelosi said, in reference to the contention that Trump's financial records could show such an entanglement.

 

NO 'ABSOLUTE' IMMUNITY

Trump's argument that he was immune from any criminal process "runs up against the 200 years of precedent establishing that Presidents, and their official communications, are subject to judicial process," Roberts wrote.

 

"We affirm that principle today and hold that the president is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need," Roberts added.

 

Roberts also rejected the suggestion that the decision would subject future presidents to harassment by local prosecutors, noting that the court in 1997 rejected a similar argument made by President Bill Clinton when he faced a civil lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, a woman who accused him of making unwanted sexual advances.

 

Roberts' analysis of the congressional subpoenas hinged on the competing political interests between different branches of government.

 

"Congressional subpoenas for the President's personal information implicate weighty concerns regarding the separation of powers," Roberts wrote. "Neither side, however, identifies an approach that accounts for these concerns."

 

Unlike other recent presidents, Trump has refused to release his tax returns and other documents that could provide details on his wealth and the activities of his family real-estate company, the Trump Organization. The content of these records has remained a persistent mystery.

 

House committees issued subpoenas seeking Trump's financial records from Mazars LLP, Deutsche Bank<DBKGn.DE> and Capital One<COF.N>.

 

As part of Vance's criminal investigation, subpoenas were issued to Mazars for financial records including nearly a decade of Trump's tax returns to be turned over to a grand jury in New York City.

 

The investigation launched by Vance's office in 2018 into Trump and the Trump Organization was spurred by disclosures of hush payments to two women who said they had past sexual relationships with him, pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump and his aides have denied the relationships.

 

In the litigation over the House subpoenas, Trump argued that Congress lacked a valid purpose for seeking his records and that disclosure of the material would compromise his and his family's privacy and distract him from his duties.

 

In the New York case, Trump's lawyers went so far as to argue before a lower court that law enforcement officials would not have the power to investigate him even if he shot someone on New York's Fifth Avenue.

 

The House Oversight Committee in April 2019 issued a subpoena to Mazars seeking eight years of accounting and other financial information in response to the congressional testimony of Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer. Cohen said Trump had inflated and deflated certain assets on financial statements between 2011 and 2013 in part to reduce his real estate taxes.

 

The House Financial Services Committee has been examining possible money laundering in U.S. property deals involving Trump. Separately, the House Intelligence Committee is investigating whether Trump's dealings left him vulnerable to the influence of foreign individuals or governments.

 

(Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-07-10

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Kelsall]

*yawn*  The darling of the left, Rachel Maddow, got ahold of Trump's tax return a while back and reported there was nothing out of the ordinary.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Kelsall

[Somtamnication]

There is a God. No one should be immune from financial obligations and audits. Nothing to do with left or right. Also, wear a mask. No need to make it political. yawn. 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

*yawn*  The darling of the left, Rachel Maddow, got ahold of Trump's tax return a while back and reported there was nothing out of the ordinary.

Yeah, but it gives the left so much hope.  Every other avenue they've tried has failed so maybe, just maybe, this will be their 'golden goose' to nail Trump.  Please, Kelsall, don't take away the left's hopes and fairy dreams.  That's cruel.

[bendejo]

Dunno how this will play out.  The AG could put the squeeze on the lower court, like he's trying to do with Flynn.  This SCOTUS decision may actually be in DT's favor.

 

 

[RJRS1301]

Surely this is not about the old tired left/right garbage, but about not being above the law. 

Transparency is a good idea for trust to be built, or am I looking through the rose coloured glasses again?

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Kelsall said:

*yawn*  The darling of the left, Rachel Maddow, got ahold of Trump's tax return a while back and reported there was nothing out of the ordinary.

No she didn’t, but I see she has your attention.

[Chomper Higgot]

Trump’s claim to immunity has been slapped down, that’s great news for Democracy and the Rule of Law.

 

Meanwhile, we also have proof positive that there were a Grand Jury in NY State examining criminal allegations against Donald Trump.

 

That’s not light at the end of the tunnel, it’s an oncoming freight train.

[herfiehandbag]

If Mr Trump loses the Presidency in November, will he then be liable for prosecution?

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

If Mr Trump loses the Presidency in November, will he then be liable for prosecution?

The ruling related to a NY State Grand Jury being given access to Trump’s tax records.

 

There is nothing (other than access to evidence) that prevents a State filling a criminal indictment against a sitting President - The tax records are evidence NY Prosecutors we’re seeking.

 

That said, Trump very well may not be in office after the coming election.

 

Its a few short months for all this to come to a head.

 

Trump understands this, which is why he’s ranting on Twitter.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[GinBoy2]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump’s claim to immunity has been slapped down, that’s great news for Democracy and the Rule of Law.

 

Meanwhile, we also have proof positive that there were a Grand Jury in NY State examining criminal allegations against Donald Trump.

 

That’s not light at the end of the tunnel, it’s an oncoming freight train.

Well this a little nuanced if you read the opinion.

 

What the Justices affirmed that the President doesn't have it absolute immunity by virtue of the office.

 

What they said however, was that POTUS has the same resource to challenge in court a subpoena based on burden, harassment, abuse.

 

Trump made no argument other Presidential absolute immunity, and thats what SCOTUS ruled on today.

 

So it will go back the 6th district who will refer back to district court, where Trump will be able to fight the case, on the abuse, harassment or burden arguments.

 

So this is no where near done, and I sincerely doubt it will work it's way through the courts before November 

 

So don't break out the popcorn just yet 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Well this a little nuanced if you read the opinion.

 

What the Justices affirmed that the President doesn't have it absolute immunity by virtue of the office.

 

What they said however, was that POTUS has the same resource to challenge in court a subpoena based on burden, harassment, abuse.

 

Trump made no argument other Presidential absolute immunity, and thats what SCOTUS ruled on today.

 

So it will go back the 6th district who will refer back to district court, where Trump will be able to fight the case, on the abuse, harassment or burden arguments.

 

So this is no where near done, and I sincerely doubt it will work it's way through the courts before November 

 

So don't break out the popcorn just yet 

Those arguments relate to Congressional getting Trump’s tax records.

 

The NY Grand Jury has been given access.

[GinBoy2]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Those arguments relate to Congressional getting Trump’s tax records.

 

The NY Grand Jury has been given access.

You're right and wrong.

 

What the ruling said that he still has to re litigate the Manhattan Grand Jury Subpoena, but if they are to be turned over they would subject to the usual Grand Jury secrecy rules until such time as it came to court.

 

I think it's also worth noting that there are two things going on; the NY State case and the House subpoenas

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-new-york-prosecutor-can-get-trump-s-n1232086

Edited July 10, 2020 by GinBoy2

[Tug]

3 hours ago, Kelsall said:

*yawn*  The darling of the left, Rachel Maddow, got ahold of Trump's tax return a while back and reported there was nothing out of the ordinary.

Oh yawn old Donald is done and now he knows he’s not above the law my oh my I’ll bet he gets hammered come January when he’s stripped of the mantle of potus can’t wait!!

[mtls2005]

I'm sure he has nothing to hide.

 

We're told he's doing this to protect future presidents.

 

Releasing his tax returns/financial records would clear his good name.

 

In other news: trump gets a second 45 day extension on filing his mandatory financial disclosure. he claims the delay is due to the virus. vp pence filed his disclosure.

 

Trump Keeps Annual Financial Disclosures Out Of View — For Now

 

The report, required to be filed each year, provides basic information about Trump's finances — unlike the detailed tax returns and other data sought by Congress and the New York district attorney that was at the heart of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Thursday.

 

In early April, the Office of Government Ethics issued a memo to federal agency ethics officials telling them they could grant 45-day extensions to the mandatory annual financial disclosure reports because of the coronavirus pandemic and "may also grant a second 45-day extension upon written request."

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09/889417292/trump-keeps-annual-financial-disclosures-out-of-view-for-now

 

Nothing to hide.

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, Tug said:

Oh yawn old Donald is done and now he knows he’s not above the law my oh my I’ll bet he gets hammered come January when he’s stripped of the mantle of potus can’t wait!!

If he loses (i really hope Americans are smart enough not to vote Trump but I remain in doubt) then all his protection is gone and those he wronged will have more power then him. That would be a sight to behold.

[Tug]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

If he loses (i really hope Americans are smart enough not to vote Trump but I remain in doubt) then all his protection is gone and those he wronged will have more power then him. That would be a sight to behold.

He’s toast dude folks here are livid now he wants to send kids into harms way we are sick and embarrassed he’s a disgrace he’s gone his only hope is to suppress the vote and that’s a slim chance at best

[mtls2005]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

If he loses (i really hope Americans are smart enough not to vote Trump but I remain in doubt) then all his protection is gone and those he wronged will have more power then him. That would be a sight to behold.

 

Meh.

 

Assuming he loses the Electoral College, and accepts defeat - if the election is close he won't, he'll litigate to SCOTUS - he will resign before January 21, 2021, and after president pence is sworn in, he will issue a sweeping universal pardon to trump, and his family, and probably a few dozen other administration officials. See GErald Ford's pardon of nixon in 1974, which indemnified nixon.

[GinBoy2]

8 minutes ago, Tug said:

He’s toast dude folks here are livid now he wants to send kids into harms way we are sick and embarrassed he’s a disgrace he’s gone his only hope is to suppress the vote and that’s a slim chance at best

I'd like to believe this is going to be the case, but we still have 20 weeks to go.

 

Sure the polls look terrible for him, but we've been down that road before.

 

I hate seeing national polls quoted since they mean almost nothing in our electoral college system.

 

There are at best 10 swing States. Forget California, Texas and the like they are a given.

 

Biden shouldn't spend a minute or a dime in California, unless he's on a fund raiser, then get straight back on the plane with his bucket loads of cash, and fly to; Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

 

Just watch the polls in those States. And while they look good, never under estimate the Svengali appeal Trump seems to have

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

I'd like to believe this is going to be the case, but we still have 20 weeks to go.

 

Sure the polls look terrible for him, but we've been down that road before.

 

I hate seeing national polls quoted since they mean almost nothing in our electoral college system.

 

There are at best 10 swing States. Forget California, Texas and the like they are a given.

 

Biden shouldn't spend a minute or a dime in California, unless he's on a fund raiser, then get straight back on the plane with his bucket loads of cash, and fly to; Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

 

Just watch the polls in those States. And while they look good, never under estimate the Svengali appeal Trump seems to have

It’s not simply that Trump is lagging in the polls across ‘swing states’, it’s that he is taking the GOP with him.

 

Mitch McConnell has given Trump until Labor Day to turn the polls around or he’s in his own.

 

Trump has two months left of pretending he can win anything.

 

 

[GinBoy2]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not simply that Trump is lagging in the polls across ‘swing states’, it’s that he is taking the GOP with him.

 

Mitch McConnell has given Trump until Labor Day to turn the polls around or he’s in his own.

 

Trump has two months left of pretending he can win anything.

 

 

I'm hoping you are right, but the GOP has had 3 and a half years to actually grow a backbone, and that still seems to be in embryonic phase.

 

I remember one of my Senators, John Thune, after the access Hollywood tapes, called for Trump drop out and give the nomination to Pence.

 

After Trump was elected he just turned in a Trump cuckold. His silence on almost everything has been deafening.

 

So we'll see, but especially in the House most the GOP are terrified about saying anything that might alienate the Trump base

[Benmart]

2 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

There is a God. No one should be immune from financial obligations and audits. Nothing to do with left or right. Also, wear a mask. No need to make it political. yawn. 

When was that photo taken? Last year or last night? "No one should be immune"... Are you the arbiter of such things or are the courts? Yawn indeed.

[bendejo]

30 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

the GOP has had 3 and a half years to actually grow a backbone, and that still seems to be in embryonic phase.

Didn't see any trace of GOP backbone during the impeachment.  Except Mitt.

 

 

[Almer]

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

If Mr Trump loses the Presidency in November, will he then be liable for prosecution?

I think it is when not if

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Meh.

 

Assuming he loses the Electoral College, and accepts defeat - if the election is close he won't, he'll litigate to SCOTUS - he will resign before January 21, 2021, and after president pence is sworn in, he will issue a sweeping universal pardon to trump, and his family, and probably a few dozen other administration officials. See GErald Ford's pardon of nixon in 1974, which indemnified nixon.

I am not disputing your assessment of these possible developments, you are an American and therefore very likely better informed than I am; but isn't it a frightful indictment of the depths to which political cynicism and respect for the dignity and probity of the office of President have sunk since this ghastly man has been in office; that it is being suggested that he is: 1) prepared to condone or authorise suppression of the vote, 2) that he could refuse to accept the result of the election, 3) that he could cynically manipulate an end of term resignation to secure pardons. Sad times, what a mess, morally, politically and likely it seems financially bankrupt. Rather than "draining the swamp" he is wallowing in it!

 

One other point, I would not be surprised if he does resign, if only because I doubt he could face the utter humiliation of standing next to his opponent whilst he is sworn into office!

Edited July 10, 2020 by herfiehandbag

[Caldera]

He will go down in history as the first president who is prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison after his time in office. Can't wait.

 

[Berkshire]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

5 hours ago, Kelsall said:

*yawn*  The darling of the left, Rachel Maddow, got ahold of Trump's tax return a while back and reported there was nothing out of the ordinary.

Yeah, but it gives the left so much hope.  Every other avenue they've tried has failed so maybe, just maybe, this will be their 'golden goose' to nail Trump.  Please, Kelsall, don't take away the left's hopes and fairy dreams.  That's cruel.

You guys are funny.  Getting Trump's financial records now won't really matter much.  You and other Trump minions will still support the guy even if it's revealed that he laundered money for the Russians.  The rest of us already know that he's unfit to be President.

 

It's AFTER the elections.  Once Trump is out of office (circa 2021), the authorities will be going after Trump with vigor.  In the end, he'll get to reunite with his former lawyer Cohen in prison.  That will be justice served. 

[Traubert]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Yeah, but it gives the left so much hope.  Every other avenue they've tried has failed so maybe, just maybe, this will be their 'golden goose' to nail Trump.  Please, Kelsall, don't take away the left's hopes and fairy dreams.  That's cruel.

That's where you're going wrong.

 

Trying to use a goose as a nail is doomed to failure.

[bendejo]

47 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

I doubt he could face the utter humiliation of standing next to his opponent whilst he is sworn into office!

related anecdote: Dick Cheney (W's veep) attended Obama's inauguration in a wheelchair, said it had something to do with boxes while packing up to move.  Yeah right.  More like he wasn't going to stand to honor a you-know-what.

 

[Emdog]

All this could be easily resolved if Trump simply kept his election promise and released his taxes, as every candidate and president has done since 1976.

There is nothing about being audited that would prevent him from releasing the returns. We do not know if he even was audited, as IRS does not confirm or deny audits.

Why are so many Trump backers comfortable with his hiding and lying? Seriously